[Ballot comment]I would like to see a resolution of Barry's DISCUSS as well. In addition if you are using division by 1024, I ...

[Ballot comment]I would like to see a resolution of Barry's DISCUSS as well. In addition if you are using division by 1024, I think the appropriate range needs to be 1KiB-256KiB instead of 1KB-256KB as defined in the draft.

2020-02-19

07

Suresh Krishnan

Ballot comment text updated for Suresh Krishnan

2020-02-19

07

Suresh Krishnan

[Ballot comment]I would like to see a resolution of Barry's DISCUSS as well. In addition if you are using division by 1024 I ...

[Ballot comment]I would like to see a resolution of Barry's DISCUSS as well. In addition if you are using division by 1024 I think the appropriate range needs to be 1KiB-256KiB instead of 1KB-256KB as defined in the draft.

2020-02-19

07

Suresh Krishnan

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan

2020-02-19

07

Benjamin Kaduk

[Ballot comment]I agree with Alissa.

Section 4

For RPC-over-RDMA version 1, the CM Private Data field is formatted as described in the ...

[Ballot comment]I agree with Alissa.

Section 4

For RPC-over-RDMA version 1, the CM Private Data field is formatted as described in the following subsection. RPC clients and servers use the same format. If the capacity of the Private Data field is too small to contain this message format, the underlying RDMA transport is not managed by a Connection Manager, or the underlying RDMA transport uses Private Data for its own purposes, the CM Private Data field cannot be used on behalf of RPC-over-RDMA version 1.

How will an implementation know if "the underlying RDMA transport usesPrivate Data for its own purposes"?

Section 5

Although it is possible to reorganize the last three of the eight bytes in the existing format, extended formats are unlikely to do so. New formats would take the form of extensions of the format described in this document with added fields starting at byte eight of the format and changes to the definition of previously reserved flags.

I would suggest making it a (mandatory) invariant of this format toretain these last three bytes' interpretation, requiring the use of adifferent "magic word" for future versions that need to diverge from it.The current text does not really give an implementation anything that itcan rely on.

Section 6

The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol framework depends on the semantics of the Reliable Connected (RC) queue pair (QP) type, as defined in Section 9.7.7 of [IBA]. The integrity of CM Private Data

It's interesting to see such a reference to [IBA], when IIUC the RFC8166 protocol is not limited to Infiniband as the underlying transport.

Additional analysis of RDMA transport security appears in the Security Considerations section of [RFC5042]. That document

Improperly setting one of the fields in a version 1 Private Message can result in an increased risk of disconnection (i.e., self-imposed Denial of Service). There is no additional risk of exposing upper- layer payloads after exchanging the Private Message format defined in the current document.

I'm not entirely sure where or how one might have expected suchadditional exposures to occur.

We should probably mention the risk that some (other) CM-private dataitem might inadvertenly produce in its payload the "magic number" thatwe use to identify this protocol's data structure. I *think* (butplease confirm) that erroneously doing so would lead only to (likely)RDMA-channel disconnection and could not introduce (e.g.) datacorruption.

In addition to describing the structure of a new format version, any document that extends the Private Data format described in the current document must discuss security considerations of new data items exchanged between connection peers.

In a similar vein, future extensions should consider what the risks oferroneously identifying "random" data as the new format would be.

Section 7

Should the registry also include the length of the private data?

Similarly to the previous section's comments, should prospectiveregistrations also be analyzing the risks to their protocol ofinterpreting "random" data as the data structure (as would happen uponan inadvertent match of the "magic number")?

Section 7.1

The new Reference field should contain a reference to that documentation. The DE can assign new Format Identifiers at random as long as they do not conflict with existing entries in this registry.

Random may not be the best choice for this, if there are ways to producevalues that are less-likely-than-random to occur inadvertently in thepayload of any of the registered formats.

2020-02-19

07

Benjamin Kaduk

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk

2020-02-19

07

Adam Roach

[Ballot comment]Balloting "No Objection" in the sense of "I trust the sponsoring AD, and have no time this ballot cycle to read the document ...

[Ballot comment]Balloting "No Objection" in the sense of "I trust the sponsoring AD, and have no time this ballot cycle to read the document." I have skimmed the document for typical ART-area gotchas, and found none.

2020-02-19

07

Adam Roach

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach

2020-02-19

07

Alissa Cooper

[Ballot comment]I'm not sure how strict we usually are about this, but the guidance in Section 7.1 makes it sound like the ...

[Ballot comment]I'm not sure how strict we usually are about this, but the guidance in Section 7.1 makes it sound like the proper registration policy is actually Specification Required, not Expert Review.

2020-02-19

07

Alissa Cooper

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper

2020-02-19

07

Roman Danyliw

[Ballot comment]Thanks for all of the changes made in response to the LC SECDIR review. Also, thank you for the LC SECDIR review ...

[Ballot comment]Thanks for all of the changes made in response to the LC SECDIR review. Also, thank you for the LC SECDIR review, Yaron (Sheffer)!

Section 6. As there is dependence on the behavior defined in [IBA], this reference should be normative.

2020-02-19

07

Roman Danyliw

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw

2020-02-19

07

Deborah Brungard

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard

2020-02-19

07

Mirja Kühlewind

[Ballot comment]One quick thought/comment: Another option for extensibility would be to use one of the reserved flags to e.g. extend the fields ...

[Ballot comment]One quick thought/comment: Another option for extensibility would be to use one of the reserved flags to e.g. extend the fields of the private data field. However, the draft states at all reserved flags need to be zero with version 1. This seems to be a bit of a waste of space but moreover it's a lost opportunity for an easy way to extend the private data field. Why was that decided?

2020-02-19

07

Mirja Kühlewind

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind

2020-02-16

07

Éric Vyncke

[Ballot comment]Thank you for the work put into this document. I found this document not so easy to read as many acronyms are used ...

[Ballot comment]Thank you for the work put into this document. I found this document not so easy to read as many acronyms are used without expansion (Stag, CM, ...) notably in the abstract. While the introduction simply refers to RFC 8166, a little more textual introduction would have been welcome.

Nevertheless, please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs (and I would appreciate a response from the authors but this is not required).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 4 --Just by sheer curiosity, I wonder where the value "0xf6ab0e18" comes from ?

-- Section 4.1.1 --"bit 15 of the Flags field" but the Flags field is only 8-bit long (to be honest, I am sure that I understand the meaning of this but being clearer would be better). Wording in section 5.1 should be used in section 4 when describing the Flags field.

I would also suggest to name the different bits of the Flags field as usually done in other IETF documents.

-- Section 5.1 --About the reserved bits, why not using the usual wording of "set to 0 when sending and ignored when received" ?

2020-02-16

07

Éric Vyncke

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov

2020-02-13

07

Tero Kivinen

Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer

2020-02-13

07

Tero Kivinen

Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer

2020-02-12

07

Barry Leiba

[Ballot discuss]Thanks for this document. This is a simple DISCUSS point that should be very easy to resolve:

— Section 5.2 —

A ...

[Ballot discuss]Thanks for this document. This is a simple DISCUSS point that should be very easy to resolve:

— Section 5.2 —

A sender computes the encoded value by dividing the buffer size, in octets, by 1024 and subtracting one from the result.

Is the buffer size necessarily a multiple of 1024? If so, where is that specified? If not, what is the encoded value when the buffer size is, say, 2000? Is it zero? Or one?

2020-02-12

07

Barry Leiba

[Ballot comment]Some purely editorial comments:

— Abstract —The abstract needs to stand alone, so you should expand the term RDMA-CM in the abstract. (RPC ...

[Ballot comment]Some purely editorial comments:

— Abstract —The abstract needs to stand alone, so you should expand the term RDMA-CM in the abstract. (RPC doesn’t need expanding, so once you’ve expanded RDMA-CM, RPC-over-RDMA should be OK.)

— Introduction —Please expand “XDR” on first use.

Section 7 of the current document

“of this document” is better, I think.

— Section 3.2 —Please expand “RNIC” and “STag”.

invalidation without the need for additional protocol to be defined.

Either “an additional protocol” or “additional protocols”.

— Section 4.1 —

Realizing these goals require that implementations of this extension follow the practices

The subject is “realizing”, which is singular. So, “requires’.

— Section 5.1 —

Bits 14 - 8: These bits are reserved and are always zero when the Version field contains 1.

In other protocols, leaving it unspecified as to what happens if not all reserved bits are zero has caused interoperability problems. If you know that’s not a concern here, that’s fine. Otherwise, it might be good to say explicitly that either they are ignored on receipt or non-zero bits result in an error.

2020-02-12

07

Barry Leiba

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Barry Leiba

2020-02-12

07

Magnus Westerlund

IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup

2020-02-12

07

Amy Vezza

Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-02-20

2020-02-12

07

Magnus Westerlund

Ballot has been issued

2020-02-12

07

Magnus Westerlund

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina TanamalSenior IANA Services Specialist

2020-01-19

06

Gunter Van de Velde

Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt

2020-01-19

06

Gunter Van de Velde

Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt

2020-01-19

06

Tero Kivinen

Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer

2020-01-19

06

Tero Kivinen

Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer

2020-01-16

06

Jean Mahoney

Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suhas Nandakumar

2020-01-16

06

Jean Mahoney

Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suhas Nandakumar

The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG(nfsv4) to consider the following document: - 'RDMA Connection ManagerPrivate Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1' <draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-06.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits finalcomments on this action. Please send substantive comments to thelast-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-01-27. Exceptionally, comments maybe sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginningof the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a connection. The addition of the private data payload specified in this document is an optional extension that does not alter the RPC- over-RDMA version 1 protocol. This document updates RFC 8166.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Whyis this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in thetitle page header?

This document is a standards track document and represents an optional extension to RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport protocol [RFC8166]. It does not replace that document.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document AnnouncementWrite-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recentexamples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approveddocuments. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a connection. Such private data is used to indicate peer support for remote invalidation and larger-than-default inline thresholds. The addition of the private data payload specified in this document is an OPTIONAL extension. The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol does not require the payload to be present.

Working Group Summary

The working group was aligned on this work and it moved through the review process with good input but nothing contentious.

Document Quality

This document represents input from the NFSv4 community with long standing experience. The authors represent the quality work of the working group and are trusted in the community with their experience and abilty to draft quality, useful text. Key comments and reviewers included Christoph Hellwig and Devesh Sharma for suggesting this approach, and Tom Talpey and Dave Noveck for extensive review. All are experts in this technical area.

This document reflects the experience of implementation and deployment in the Linux NFS client and server both support the message format specified in the document. Support was merged in fall of 2019 with Linux v4.9. Other implementations have expressed interest in adopting the work, including the support for Remote Invalidation

Personnel

Brian Pawlowski is the document shepherd. Magnus Westerlund is the responsible area director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed bythe Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not readyfor publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded tothe IESG.

As shepherd, I have read and reviewed the document as part of theworking group last call. I have discussed the document with the author, and my co-chair and reaffirmed during our last WG meeting that there is continuedinterest in completing the release of this specification.

This version of the document is ready for review by the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth orbreadth of the reviews that have been performed?

As shepherd, I have no concerns about the document and believe it isneeded and adds value to the overall NFSv4 RFC collection.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or frombroader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review thattook place.

No special review is required for this document.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherdhas with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or theIESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortablewith certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there reallyis a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues andhas indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail thoseconcerns here.

There are no concerns for this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPRdisclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPRdisclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with othersbeing silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The working group is supportive of this document without exception. Affirmedat last face-to-face meeting.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in thisdocument. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-DraftsChecklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to bethorough.

Minor copyright dates and minor issues will need to be updated.These can be done during final edits, if required.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal reviewcriteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified aseither normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready foradvancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normativereferences exist, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

N/A

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of anyexisting RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listedin the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are notlisted in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to thepart of the document where the relationship of this document to theother RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No changes to existing RFCs, RFC 8166 interoperability is described in detail on how the extension co-exists with unmodified implementations.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerationssection, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of thedocument. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makesare associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearlyidentified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include adetailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, thatallocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and areasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA registry addition has been clearly identified and described by the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for futureallocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would finduseful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the DocumentShepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formallanguage, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A

2019-10-31

04

Spencer Shepler

Responsible AD changed to Magnus Westerlund

2019-10-31

04

Spencer Shepler

IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Whyis this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in thetitle page header?

This document is a standards track document and represents an optional extension to RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport protocol [RFC8166]. It does not replace that document.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document AnnouncementWrite-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recentexamples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approveddocuments. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a connection. Such private data is used to indicate peer support for remote invalidation and larger-than-default inline thresholds. The addition of the private data payload specified in this document is an OPTIONAL extension. The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol does not require the payload to be present.

Working Group Summary

The working group was aligned on this work and it moved through the review process with good input but nothing contentious.

Document Quality

This document represents input from the NFSv4 community with long standing experience. The authors represent the quality work of the working group and are trusted in the community with their experience and abilty to draft quality, useful text. Key comments and reviewers included Christoph Hellwig and Devesh Sharma for suggesting this approach, and Tom Talpey and Dave Noveck for extensive review. All are experts in this technical area.

This document reflects the experience of implementation and deployment in the Linux NFS client and server both support the message format specified in the document. Support was merged in fall of 2019 with Linux v4.9. Other implementations have expressed interest in adopting the work, including the support for Remote Invalidation

Personnel

Brian Pawlowski is the document shepherd. Magnus Westerlund is the responsible area director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed bythe Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not readyfor publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded tothe IESG.

As shepherd, I have read and reviewed the document as part of theworking group last call. I have discussed the document with the author, and my co-chair and reaffirmed during our last WG meeting that there is continuedinterest in completing the release of this specification.

This version of the document is ready for review by the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth orbreadth of the reviews that have been performed?

As shepherd, I have no concerns about the document and believe it isneeded and adds value to the overall NFSv4 RFC collection.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or frombroader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review thattook place.

No special review is required for this document.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherdhas with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or theIESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortablewith certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there reallyis a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues andhas indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail thoseconcerns here.

There are no concerns for this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPRdisclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPRdisclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with othersbeing silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The working group is supportive of this document without exception. Affirmedat last face-to-face meeting.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in thisdocument. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-DraftsChecklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to bethorough.

Minor copyright dates and minor issues will need to be updated.These can be done during final edits, if required.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal reviewcriteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified aseither normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready foradvancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normativereferences exist, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

N/A

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of anyexisting RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listedin the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are notlisted in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to thepart of the document where the relationship of this document to theother RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No changes to existing RFCs, RFC 8166 interoperability is described in detail on how the extension co-exists with unmodified implementations.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerationssection, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of thedocument. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makesare associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearlyidentified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include adetailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, thatallocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and areasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA registry addition has been clearly identified and described by the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for futureallocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would finduseful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the DocumentShepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formallanguage, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Whyis this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in thetitle page header?

This document is a standards track document and represents an optional extension to RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport protocol [RFC8166]. It does not replace that document.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document AnnouncementWrite-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recentexamples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approveddocuments. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a connection. Such private data is used to indicate peer support for remote invalidation and larger-than-default inline thresholds. The addition of the private data payload specified in this document is an OPTIONAL extension. The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol does not require the payload to be present.

Working Group Summary

The working group was aligned on this work and it moved through the review process with good input but nothing contentious.

Document Quality

This document represents input from the NFSv4 community with long standing experience. The authors represent the quality work of the working group and are trusted in the community with their experience and abilty to draft quality, useful text. Key comments and reviewers included Christoph Hellwig and Devesh Sharma for suggesting this approach, and Tom Talpey and Dave Noveck for extensive review. All are experts in this technical area.

This document reflects the experience of implementation and deployment in the Linux NFS client and server both support the message format specified in the document. Support was merged in fall of 2019 with Linux v4.9. Other implementations have expressed interest in adopting the work, including the support for Remote Invalidation

Personnel

Brian Pawlowski is the document shepherd. Magnus Westerlund is the responsible area director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed bythe Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not readyfor publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded tothe IESG.

As shepherd, I have read and reviewed the document as part of theworking group last call. I have discussed the document with the author, and my co-chair and reaffirmed during our last WG meeting that there is continuedinterest in completing the release of this specification.

This version of the document is ready for review by the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth orbreadth of the reviews that have been performed?

As shepherd, I have no concerns about the document and believe it isneeded and adds value to the overall NFSv4 RFC collection.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or frombroader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review thattook place.

No special review is required for this document.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherdhas with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or theIESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortablewith certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there reallyis a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues andhas indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail thoseconcerns here.

There are no concerns for this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPRdisclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPRdisclosures.

N/A

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with othersbeing silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The working group is supportive of this document without exception. Affirmedat last face-to-face meeting.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in thisdocument. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-DraftsChecklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to bethorough.

Minor copyright dates and minor issues will need to be updated.These can be done during final edits, if required.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal reviewcriteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified aseither normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready foradvancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normativereferences exist, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

N/A

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of anyexisting RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listedin the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are notlisted in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to thepart of the document where the relationship of this document to theother RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No changes to existing RFCs, RFC 8166 interoperability is described in detail on how the extension co-exists with unmodified implementations.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerationssection, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of thedocument. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makesare associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearlyidentified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include adetailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, thatallocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and areasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA registry addition has been clearly identified and described by the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for futureallocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would finduseful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the DocumentShepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formallanguage, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.